Making Knowledge Management More Relevant and Creative: A Comparative Study of ECKM Papers.

This paper is analyzing and comparing all the academic research papers in the proceedings of ECKM in 2017 (Barcelona) and 2018 (Padua). The study is classifying the papers according to methodology, analysis, discussion, and conclusion regarding their contribution, placing them into the four paradigmatic boxes. The approach is to use a philosophy of science framework and compare this to the content of the research papers. We have used the findings in four representations of knowledge, two typologies of concepts, four paradigmatic classifications, and the concluding framework for knowledge management research. Both conferences have a heavy emphasis upon knowledge-itis and instrumental-itis and much less emphasis upon problem-itis. The papers are centered around existing knowledge and accepted methodology and less related to new problems. The results indicate an ECKM conference based upon as-is knowledge and less upon new problems. The ECKM papers have rather low complexity presented in an empirical and materialistic paradigmatic framework through definitive concepts representing a form of atomistic research. What would ECKM have been with a higher degree of complexity in action and subjective paradigmatic frameworks through sensitizing concepts representing a form of holistic research? Probably a more creative, engaged and relevant conference. Objectivity is in demand, but subjectivity is needed to come up with proposals for working greener and smarter. To move ahead for better quality in the research, it is necessary to break free from the empirical paradigm and the materialistic paradigm and move into the clarified subjectivity and action paradigm. Paradigmatic ecumenism will tend to a fiercer, but an idea-generating debate. This pluralistic approach will give more engaged practical research representing more sustainable societies and businesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]